• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Virginia court rules felon voting rights order unconstitutional


Governor Terry McAuliffe was only pandering to one portion of the Democratic voting block, criminals, by doing what Democrats have started doing regularly now, since President Obama has taken the lead by setting the example, the executive legislating by fiat (AKA-Executive Order).

Now, if we could just get the SCOTUS to do the same, even more than they already have, 12 times so far if I remember correctly.
 
As long as you don't count the two victories for liberals when it comes to striking down voter-suppression laws in Texas and Minnesota over the past week or so....

Actually, those are still under appeal in federal courts. The one in the OP is a final ruling.
 
People who have been convicted of crimes, served their time and been released should absolutely have their voting rights restored.
 
As a Virginia resident, I do not really care for Governor McAuliffe.


But, he is "dead on balls" right about ex cons having the right to vote! I fully support his stance on the issue.
 
As a Virginia resident, I do not really care for Governor McAuliffe.


But, he is "dead on balls" right about ex cons having the right to vote! I fully support his stance on the issue.
He's just doing it for the wrong reasons.

The Virginia assembly should pass a law, permitting the governor to restore voting rights to any Fallon in Virginia, but every fell in his voting rights as restore gets there gun rights restored by default. Then we'll see how committed McAuliffe really is to this principle
 
He's just doing it for the wrong reasons.

The Virginia assembly should pass a law, permitting the governor to restore voting rights to any Fallon in Virginia, but every fell in his voting rights as restore gets there gun rights restored by default. Then we'll see how committed McAuliffe really is to this principle

No....No... No

The Virginia Senate open discussions on television have separated the issue on voting and guns, and the local courts can/will determine whether or not a felon can apply for firearm ownership.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...80101e-1e92-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html
 
He's just doing it for the wrong reasons.

The Virginia assembly should pass a law, permitting the governor to restore voting rights to any Fallon in Virginia, but every fell in his voting rights as restore gets there gun rights restored by default. Then we'll see how committed McAuliffe really is to this principle

I agree with that, that is real compromise and really, the only consistent thing one can do.
 
No....No... No

The Virginia Senate open discussions on television have separated the issue on voting and guns, and the local courts can/will determine whether or not a felon can apply for firearm ownership.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...80101e-1e92-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html
The issues may be separate, but constitutional rights are constitutional rights at the end of the day. if we are going restore voting rights, we should, at some point based on conditions, restore firearm rights as well.
 
The issues may be separate, but constitutional rights are constitutional rights at the end of the day. if we are going restore voting rights, we should, at some point based on conditions, restore firearm rights as well.

Agreed...........not all ex cons served time for violent acts.
 
Since I don't wAnt to read the entire link, I'm going to assume Republicans want to strip felons of their voting rights...and the court said okay fine. As a life-long conservative, I disagree. But if I waited to support a party 100%, I'd be voting for Mickey Mouse ;)

Or cheeto jesus.
 
Actually, those are still under appeal in federal courts. The one in the OP is a final ruling.

And SCOTUS is 4-4...and once Hillary's in office, it'll soon be 5-4 for liberals, since the GOP hasn't the guts to affirm the current nominee even when it's someone that many of them admire and not one of them has anything bad to say about. As we've found, there's one and only one requirement to keep a nominee from getting affirmed - and that's if he was nominated by Obama. It doesn't matter how much the Right likes him - none of them DARE vote to affirm him because the moment they do, their vote will be used against them in the GOP primary by some right-winger who's even more of a nutcase than the ones already in Congress.
 
Back
Top Bottom